On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 19:13 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:41:29 +1000 > > > On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:40:11 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:30:32 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> > Here's what I am applying as a merge fixup to the net tree today so that > >> > my ppc64_defconfig builds actually build more or less the same set of > >> > drivers as before this rearrangement. > >> > >> And this today: > > > > And this: > > I'm starting to get uncomfortable with this whole situation, and I > feel more and more that these new kconfig guards are not tenable. > > Changing defconfig files might fix the "automated test boot with > defconfig" case but it won't fix the case of someone trying to > automate a build and boot using a different, existing, config file. > It ought to work too, and I do know people really do this. > > And just the fact that we would have to merge all of these defconfig changes > through the networking tree is evidence of how it's really not reasonable > to be doing things this way. > > Jeff, I think we need to revert the dependencies back to what they were > before the drivers/net moves. Could you prepare a patch which does that? > I was just finishing up those patches (not including any defconfig changes) and started looking at a patch to fix/resolve the issues that Stephen is seeing. Let me see what I can come up with tonight to resolve this.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
